The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[RegularChuck]

Sure. The people who support him are not trying to remove him, obviously. So what if they are being political? Its the side wanting to remove a sitting, elected President that need to make sure the process and substance of removal is apolitical as possible. They have massively failed.

That’ll happen when you advocate for the senate to act as the defense team. So don’t give me that fake apolitical garbage.

 

[JimEverett]

That’ll happen when you advocate for the senate to act as the defense team. So don’t give me that fake apolitical garbage.

LOL. Yeah - its the Senate's fault for this sham impeachment.

 

[samiam5211]

LOL. Yeah - its the Senate's fault for this sham impeachment.

Jim,

If we accept Dershowitz's reasoning about what the president has the authority to do, would anything Nixon did during Watergate have been impeachable?

Wasn't he just doing what he thought was best for the country by trying to ensure his reelection?

this isn't a set up question, i really would like to know your opinion on it.

 

[RegularChuck]

LOL. Yeah - its the Senate's fault for this sham impeachment.

You: I think the senate should act as the defense during the impeachment.

Also you: Sham impeachment.

 

[coldseat]

Someone posted the video yesterday of the Impeachment trial where a WH lawyer details the letter sent to Congress outlining why the WH was refusing to comply with Congressional requests. That is part of the normal procedure of these things. I am sure the letter itself can be found somewhere. In essence, such a letter is part of the negotiation and interplay between the branches. You can continue to act as if there was some sort of unprecedented denial, but the facts are clearly otherwise. It is just that Congress didn't want to negotiate, didn't want the COurts to get involved, it wanted to act like it was the Supreme branch of government and have the Executive subservient - but that is not how our system is set up.

Yes, and in that letter, the Executive declared that the House investigations were not legitimate and that's the reason they weren't going to comply with any of the request of witnesses and documents. That is not within the Executive's capacity to decide, that is obstruction. If they had individual arguments of privilege, they should have been made at that time. But they just declared the whole investigation illegitimate and expected Congress to just accept that and issue a subpoena of every document every witness requested and fight it out in court. That would bog down the courts for years on end. That's not how our government is run; historically, legally or otherwise. There is very sound reasoning and basis for Obstruction of Congress in this case.

 

[V Chip]

The only people who think it is impeachable are the people, for the most part, that did not vote for him. Do you not think this is a problem?

It *is* a problem, but not for the reason you are stating.

It does not seem unreasonable for the President to ask a newly elected President of Ukraine to investigate a Ukranian company with a history of corruption who had put the completely unqualified son of the former VP of the US on its board.

Again, what would the investigation cover, besides the nepotism angle? Trump didn't want to investigate Burisma -- he wanted an investigation into the Bidens. If he wanted an investigation into Burisma, then why the signoff of aid numerous times while the Burisma investigation was shelved? Why did he not also call for the ouster of Shokin (or support it), who actually helped the owner of Burisma get $23 million in held money in the UK released?

The only people who are calling for an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma are, for the most part, strong Trump supporters. Do you not think this is a problem?(SWIDT?)

 

[MT15]

Many people have said what the national interest is with respect to Trump's demand/request. The fact that you, and presumably Democrats in general, don't buy it should mean, what? Impeachment?
So, when Republicans don't buy the Democratic President's move, similar to Obama's, then its fair game to impeach as long as they control the House?

Would you consider the actions of Rudy, Lev and Igor to be evidence of corrupt intent? Would you consider hiding the fact that the aid was withheld from Congress, who he had a legal obligation to inform, evidence of corrupt intent? Would you consider getting rid of an Ambassador on the day so of Lev to be evidence of corrupt intent?

I’m sure I’ve forgotten other actions. Oh, lying about the whole thing? Evidence of corrupt intent?

 

[RegularChuck]

LOL. Yeah - its the Senate's fault for this sham impeachment.

It’s your opinion that Democrats motivation makes the impeachment a sham. But your position on how the Senate should perform it’s duties leaves no doubt.

To better illustrate your inconsistent position, I’ll revise my earlier post.

You: The process is the most important thing here. We must preserve the process.

You: I think the senate should act as the defense during the impeachment.

Also you: Sham impeachment.

Pick one, or at the very least provide some guidance how all these seemingly inconsistent positions jive?

 

[FullMonte]

It does not seem unreasonable for the President to ask a newly elected President of Ukraine to investigate a Ukranian company with a history of corruption who had put the completely unqualified son of the former VP of the US on its board.

No, it does not seem unreasonable for the President to ask a new elected president of Ukraine to investigate a Ukranian company with a history of corruption who had put the completely unqualified son of the former VP of the US on its board.

I don't think I've heard a single person make that argument.

What is being argued is whether or not the president did that, and whether or not he was actually interested in an investigation into potential corruption. The answer to the first question is no, and the evidence makes it almost impossible to believe that the answer to the second question is anything but no.

Trump did not ask Zelenskyy to investigate corruption re: Burisma. He asked Zelenskyy to look into Joe BIden getting the prosecutor fired. Simply put, there is NOTHING Ukraine can do to investigate Biden getting the prosecutor fired.

As for the second part of the question, the overwhelming evidence surrounding this whole thing makes is hard to buy that this was about a legitmate interest in corruption
--The White House repeatedly approved the release of the aid for two months after Zelenskyy was elected, and after the DOD had stated that the Ukranians had taken the steps to address corruption.
--Trump ordered the aid halted, and told the OMB not to tell anyone that it was being held up.

Can you think of a credible reason why the issue of corruption (that happened between 2010-2012) was SUDDENLY such a big deal on July 25 that it had to be immediately held up when it wasn't approved almost daily for the previous two months?
Can you think of a credible reason why the issue of corruption was such a big deal that the aid had to be held up, but no one could be told what needed to be done to get it released?

 

[JimEverett]

It *is* a problem, but not for the reason you are stating.

Again, what would the investigation cover, besides the nepotism angle? Trump didn't want to investigate Burisma -- he wanted an investigation into the Bidens.

I may be wrong, but Vindman's (spelling) testimony was clear that the investigation was into Ukranian influence in 2016 and Burisma. I understand there is there reason to think it was solely the Bidens - but that doesn't seem 100% clear to me.

If he wanted an investigation into Burisma, then why the signoff of aid numerous times while the Burisma investigation was shelved? Why did he not also call for the ouster of Shokin (or support it), who actually helped the owner of Burisma get $23 million in held money in the UK released?

One possibility: newly elected PResident of Ukraine. I am sure there are potentially others.

The only people who are calling for an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma are, for the most part, strong Trump supporters. Do you not think this is a problem?(SWIDT?)

No, it is not a problem. That is a political position. Trump supporters holding a politicial position does not strike me as problematic. Impeaching a President over something that is at least on its face a political position is the problem.

 

[Archies Ghost]

A little heated oratory finally...

User Clip: Should the Senate consider the partisan nature pf the proceedings?

Should the Senate consider the partisan nature pf the proceedings?

www.c-span.org

 

[V Chip]

I may be wrong, but Vindman's (spelling) testimony was clear that the investigation was into Ukranian influence in 2016 and Burisma. I understand there is there reason to think it was solely the Bidens - but that doesn't seem 100% clear to me.

“I mean, there was no ambiguity, I guess, in my mind. He was calling for something, calling for an investigation that didn’t exist into the Bidens and Burisma,” Vindman said, referring to Burisma holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas company where Biden’s son Hunter had served as a board member.
...
“I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” he testified on Oct. 29. Following that call, Vindman again reported his concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel.

One possibility: newly elected PResident of Ukraine. I am sure there are potentially others.

Except that happened months before the aid was put on hold, and aid was voted on for release many times between the election and the actual hold on the aid.

Additionally, the call for investigations into Biden specifically happened before the election as well as after.

No, it is not a problem. That is a political position. Trump supporters holding a politicial position does not strike me as problematic. Impeaching a President over something that is at least on its face a political position is the problem.

 

[wardorican]

youre right as usual. my side can only be the butt of the joke... if my side laughs its because we are racist evil woman hating climate denying toxic masculinity draped scum. when your side laughs it is from the highest pillar of virtue. riiiiight.

No, it is simply because you're being a troll.

Laugh after he is acquitted, if you want.

But everything you just followed up with just paints you as a bigger troll. Your own posting style is the reason you will be the butt of various jokes.

 

[samiam5211]

Now they seem to be acting like the 6th amendment applies to the President in an impeachment hearing.

The president has no right to due process. He cannot be accused of a crime. Due process does not apply.

 

[MT15]

JimE your characterization of the Democrats being the party in the House that didn’t want to negotiate about what materials would be made available is just flat wrong. It’s 180 degrees from the truth.

The WH letter said the whole impeachment inquiry was invalid and that they would provide nothing at all. Not one document and not one witness. And they didn’t. Without claiming any sort of privilege, just “you don’t have the right to see anything”. This is unprecedented, nobody else has said such nonsense. The House has the constitutional right to see these documents and hear from these witnesses. A proper refusal would have included a valid reason. There’s no way that’s a valid response.

But it goes along with the assertions Trump’s defense is making, that the interests of the President are the interests of the state. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

I do respect your opinions and sometimes learn from them, but you don’t get to provide alternate facts that differ from reality. I would be interested in your honest responses to my questions in my last post before this one.

Do any of the actions I described provide evidence of corrupt intent?

I can certainly live with the opinion that what Trump did was definitely wrong, and corrupt, but doesn’t rise to the level of removal from office. I disagree, but it’s a realistic opinion. Congress should censure him and then we can all move on.

What I cannot stomach are the wholly disingenuous claims that he did nothing wrong. Nobody that says he did nothing wrong deserves a shred of credibility.

 

[JRad]

I mean Senate Republicans told us from day 1 they had no intent of having an actual trial, so rushing it through to give Trump a chance to grandstand at the SoU tracks.

Pretty shameful getting to say "na na boo boo" is more important than conducting an actual trial.

 

[samiam5211]

If a president openly stated that if someone started a super pac to support their campaign he would nominate them to the SCOTUS, would it be ok as long as there was no communication once the super pac was established?

Or suppose a congressman agreed to let George Soros decide every vote they cast if his organizations supported their campaign, that would be ok?

 

[insidejob]

LOL. Pam Bondi is having a hard time.